Content: Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Background: White Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Pattern: Blank Waves Notes Sharp Wood Rockface Leather Honey Vertical Triangles
Welcome to Fitnessandlifestyle.co.uk Fitness Forums

Welcome to Fitnessandlifestyle.co.uk - Fitness forums and community. Discuss topics such as fitness, nutrition diet and lifestyle. You're currently viewing fitnessandlifestyle.co.uk as a guest. Members can communicate with members all over the world by starting new topics and posts in the forums so sign up now. Its free to register!

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
faz

The Influence Of Frequency, Intensity, Volume And Mode Of Strength Training On Whole Muscle Cross-Sectional Area In Humans

12 posts in this topic

this was a 48 page paper which has been summarised by lyle macdonald,it was based on 227 studies done from 1970 to 2007.

from lyle macdonalds forum

Sports Med. 2007;37(3):225-64.

The influence of frequency, intensity, volume and mode of strength training on whole muscle cross-sectional area in humans.

I thought I'd summarize this comprehensive paper both for my own benefit and for those who want the highlights. I've restricted my summary to the parts of the paper that talk about your typical "dynamic external resistance" training. The gist of the paper is that while we do know what works for hypertrophy (pretty much everything, to an extent), we really don't know what's optimal, especially in trained individuals and in the long run. Dan also posted some excerpts on his forum: http://hypertrophy-research.com/phpB...opic.php?t=213

Results

No relationship could be found between frequency of training and the increase per day in muscle cross sectional area. When the intensity was plotted against the rate of increase, a weak tendency was found for the rate to increase with increasing intensity. The highest rates of increase tended to occur around 75% of 1RM. When volume was plotted against the rate of increase, greater gains in muscle mass were seen initially with increasing volume while there were diminishing returns as the volume increased further. The highest rates of increase tended to occur with 30-60 repetitions per session.

Discussion

Frequency: For hypertrophy, studies suggest that training two or three times per week is superior to training one time per week, even when volume is equal. However, there doesn't appear to be a benefit of three sessions per week over two. "Although some interesting trends can be discerned from the data... there is clearly a need for further research on training frequency in both highly-trained and less-trained subjects."

Intensity: "The studies reviewed in this article show that there is a remarkably wide range of intensities that may produce hypertrophy. Still, there seems to be some relationship between the load (or torque) and the rate of increase in CSA." This is not linear, but seemed to peak around 75%. "Thus, the results of this review support the typical recommendations with intensity levels of 70–85% of maximum when training for muscle hypertrophy, but also show that marked hypertrophy is possible at both higher and lower loads."

Volume: "Overall, moderate volumes (≈30–60 repetitions per session for DER training) appear to yield the largest responses." An exception to this is with very high loads (90% 1RM or 120% to 230% 1RM with eccentrics) where high rates of growth have been shown with volumes as low as 12-14 repetitions per session. To date, relatively few studies have directly compared the effects of different volumes of work on the hypertrophic response as measured by scanning methodology." The paucity of data clearly warrants further research.

Mode of Training and Type of Muscle Action: You often hear statements like "eccentric training produces the greatest muscle hypertrophy". "This review demonstrates that given sufficient frequency, intensity and duration of work, all three types of muscle actions can induce significant hypertrophy at impressive rates and that at present, there is insufficient evidence for the superiority of any mode and/or type of muscle action over other modes and types of training in this regard." In fact, the data suggest that pure eccentric training is inferior to both concentric and eccentric+concentric training, though this is still a subject of debate rather than a scientific certainty.

Rest Periods and the Role of Fatigue: "Upon closer examination, it appears that when maximal or near-maximal efforts are used, it is advantageous to use long periods of rest. This is logical in light of the well known detrimental effects of fatigue on force production and electrical activity in the working muscle. If high levels of force and maximum recruitment of motor units are important factors in stimulating muscle hypertrophy, it makes sense to use generous rest periods between sets and repetitions of near-maximal to maximal efforts... On the other hand, when using submaximal resistance, the size principle dictates that motor unit recruitment and firing rates are probably far from maximal until the muscle is near fatigue or unless the repetitions are performed with the intention to execute the movement very quickly."

Interactions Between Frequency, Intensity, Volume and Mode: "Based on the available evidence, we suggest that the time-tension integral is a more important parameter than the mechanical work output (force × distance)... Overall, we feel that the trends observed in this review are consistent with the model for training-overtraining continuum proposed by Fry,[186] where the optimal training volume and also the volume threshold for overtraining decreases with increasing intensity... Regarding training for hypertrophy in already highly-trained individuals, there is at present insufficient data to suggest any trends in the dose-response curves for the training variables."

Eccentrics: "Taken together, the results of these studies support the common recommendation of using somewhat lower frequencies and volumes for high-force eccentric exercise than for conventional resistance training..."

Order of endurance/strength training: "It has been suggested that strength training should be performed first, in order not to compromise the quality of the strength-training session.[194] However, this order may not necessarily be the best choice for inducing increases in muscle mass. Deakin[195] investigated the impact of the order of exercise in combined strength and endurance training and reported that gene expression associated with muscle hypertrophy responded more strongly when cycling was performed before strength training, instead of vice versa. Interestingly, in the study of Sale et al.,[111] performing cycling first seemed to induce the greatest increase in muscle area. Still, because the lack of studies investigating the effects of the order of exercise in concurrent training on hypertrophy, no firm conclusions can be drawn on this issue."

Time Course of Muscle Hypertrophy: "Until recently, the prevailing opinion has been that neural adaptations play the dominant role during the first 6–7 weeks of training, during which hypertrophy is usually minor." However, several investigations [13,27,54,87,105,118,128] have demonstrated significant hypertrophy at the whole muscle level after short periods of training (3–5 weeks). "Thus, there now plenty of evidence that significant hypertrophy can take place early on given proper frequency, intensity and volume of training," even prior to changes in muscle CSA. "As argued by Phillips,[198] the idea that early gains in strength are due exclusively to neural adaptations seems doubtful... In some strength-training studies, the increase in muscle volume is delayed, while in others, the rate of growth is rapid. We speculate that less-damaging training modes may allow the hypertrophy response to start earlier. Regimens that include eccentric muscle actions, especially those involving maximal effort, appear to require a careful initiation and progression of training to avoid muscle damage and muscle protein breakdown [excessive apoptosis and proteolysis]."

The Stimulus for Muscle Hypertrophy in Strength Training: "Two studies by Martineau and Gardiner[216,217] have provided insight into how different levels of force and different durations of tension may affect hypertrophic signaling in skeletal muscle... they remarked that both peak tension and time-tension integral must be included in the modeling of the mechanical stimulus response of skeletal muscle... Based on the data reviewed in this paper, we speculate that hypertrophic signalling in human skeletal muscle is very sensitive to the magnitude of tension developed in the muscle. Hence, for very short durations of work, the increase in muscle size will be greater for maximal-eccentric exercise than for maximal-concentric exercise of similar durations... The response is presumably also dependent on the total duration of work and increases initially with greater durations. Thus, both short durations of maximal eccentric exercise and somewhat longer durations of concentric, isometric and conventional dynamic resistance exercise can result in impressive increases in muscle volume. However, especially with maximal eccentric exercise, damage also seems to come into play as the duration of work increases even further and the acute and/or cumulative damage may eventually overpower the hypertrophic process."

Training Implications and Recommendations: For your typical "dynamic external resistance", recommendations are given for "Moderate load slow-speed training", "Conventional hypertrophy training", and "Eccentric (ecc) overload training". These three modes are denoted as suitable for beginners, novice-well trained, and advanced-elite, respectively. For the "Conventional hypertrophy training" for the novice to the well trained, they recommend an 8-10RM load (75-80% 1RM), with 8-10 reps to failure or near failure, 1-3 sets per exercise, progression from 1–2 to 3–6 sets total per muscle group, moderate velocity (1-2 seconds for each CON and ECC), 60-180 seconds rest between sets, and 2-3 sessions per muscle group per week.

Conclusions: "This review demonstrates that several modes of training and all three types of muscle actions can induce hypertrophy at impressive rates and that, at present, there is insufficient evidence for the superiority of any mode and/or type of muscle action over other modes and types of training. That said, it appears that exercise with a maximal-eccentric component can induce increases in muscle mass with shorter durations of work than other modes. Some evidence suggests that the training frequency has a large impact on the rate of gain in muscle volume for shorter periods of training. Because longer studies using relatively high frequencies are lacking, it cannot be excluded that stagnation or even overtraining would occur in the long term. Regarding intensity, moderately heavy loads seem to elicit the greatest gains for most categories of training, although examples of very high rates were noted at both very low and very high intensities when the sets were performed with maximum effort or taken to muscular failure. Thus, achieving recruitment of the greatest number of muscle fibres possible and exposing them to the exercise stimulus may be as important as the training load per se. For the total volume or duration of activity, the results suggest a dose-response curve characterised by an increase in the rate of growth in the initial part of the curve, which is followed by the region of peak rate of increase, which in turn is followed by a plateau or even a decline. It is recognised that the conclusions drawn in this paper mainly concern relatively short-term training in previously untrained subjects and that in highly trained subjects or for training studies extending for several months, the dose-response trends and the hypertrophic effects of different modes and types of strength training may be very different. The same may well be true for other populations, such as elderly and injured individuals."

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A review on the above research, by DR. winnett. I believe it simplifies things a bit.

source link (also published by lyle in his forum):

Science Department

How Does the Training Load and Frequency of Training Impact Muscular Development?

Wernborn M, Augustsson J, Thomee R.

The influence of frequency, intensity, volume, and mode of training on whole muscle cross-sectional area in humans.

Sports Medicine.2007; 37: 225-264.

Wernborn and colleagues undertook an ambitious task. Their aim was to investigate through existing studies on resistance training how the training load and frequency of training affected muscular development as measured by increases in muscle cross-section areas (CSA).

Most prior reviews of resistance training have focused on strength and strength related outcomes. There are various recommendations and protocols based on the belief that training for strength and training for hypertrophy require different approaches. Resistance training ‘camps’ promote their own special ‘hypertrophy routines’. Currently, there is little empirical support for this widely held and promoted belief and set of hypertrophy routines.

Wenborn et al. conducted a detailed search of studies conducted from 1970 through 2006 that included scanning technologies to assess CSA. There were only enough studies in the literature that adequately measured CSA for the quadriceps (44 studies) and for the biceps (elbow flexors; 16 studies). For each study, Werborn et al. were able to derive a CSA measure for the entire duration for the study as well as a rate measure.

A major caveat is that most of the studies involved

participants with no previous experience in resistance training. The rate of CSA change is greater for people who were previously inexperienced than for people training for two to three years. For people training for many years, the rate of change is very small or negligible. Despite this caveat about the generalizability of the findings to experienced trainees, a number of the findings and statements made in the narrative are of interest. However, there also are some points of contradiction in their narrative and conclusions.

For both the quadriceps and biceps, training those muscle groups two times per week produced a greater rate of CSA than training once per week. However, training those muscle groups three times per week did not produce a greater rate of CSA than training those muscle groups twice per week.

Training those muscle groups with less than 60% of a 1 RM (60% of the resistance that can be used for one maximum repetition) generally produced a lower rate of CSA than training at about 70% to 85% of 1 RM. Volume of exercise was based on total number of repetitions performed per muscle group in a session. This can be a confusing and meaningless way to measure volume because the number of repetitions performed with a given resistance is dependent upon the duration of the repetitions as well as a number of other factors such as how strictly repetitions were performed.

But, if the volume of work affects increases in CSA, what aspect of the volume of work is important? Wernborn et al. noted (p. 249) that: “Based on the available evidence, we suggest that the time-tension integral is a more important parameter than the mechanical work output (force x distance).”

In other words, rather than the number of repetitions, the actual time under tension appears to be the more important stimulus for increasing CSA. If that is true, then performing repetitions with very short durations, or performing ‘explosive’ repetitions, may not be very effective motor recruitment strategies. Rapid movement and literally throwing a weight involves using a good deal of momentum and diminishes the time under tension.

Besides some issues with definitions and measurement, there are some other points of inconsistency in this empirically based review. Wernborn et al. noted a number of times that force, the amount of resistance, is a critical factor for increasing CSA. Yet, as noted above, their own data indicated that there was a wide range of force (percent of 1RM) that was effective for increasing CSA. The authors also indicated a number of times that the size principle of motor unit recruitment (see April, 2007) points to the use of high force to maximize motor unit recruitment. Then, in a number of other instances, Werborn et al. noted the importance of using near-maximal effort in training (p. 248) when using more moderate resistance and provided evidence of this point from one elegantly designed study.

In fact, earlier in the paper, Werborn indicated: “Achieving recruitment of the greatest possible number of motor units in the target muscle(s) and making those motor units fire at high rates and for sufficient lengths of time are obvious prerequisites for inducing significant hypertrophy."

Still, it appears that maximal loads are not necessary to ensure these conditions are met providing that the training is performed with close to maximum effort in at least one of the sets.” (p.244). The key variable for maximizing motor unit recruitment seems to be the degree of effort and not force or volume.

Despite, their extensive empirical review, Werborn et al. concluded with training recommendations that are familiar and actually contradict some of their own earlier points.

For conventional training, they recommend training muscle groups two-three times per week (their own data indicated no differences in outcomes between two to three days per muscle group), using a resistance that is 75% to 80% of 1 RM (their own data indicated a wider range force and that effort is the key factor not load), and performing three to six sets per muscle groups (the prior quote suggested that it may be the near maximal effort in one set that is the most important stimulus for increasing CSA).

Bottom-line: At 40 pages, 11 figures (graphics with data), two large tables, and with 227 references, this is likely the most extensive review ever published of training variables affecting muscular hypertrophy. The data and long review seem to obscure very simple findings and training recommendations.

Consider even the issue of sets per muscle group. As has been often noted (see April, 2007), many exercises affect multiple muscle groups. Suppose performing three sets per muscle group using one set per exercise was optimal. An upper body routine can include one set of a chest press, a seated overhead press at 80 degrees, and dips or a similar movement. Given how exercises affect different muscle groups, then chest, deltoids, and triceps would have been trained with three sets.

You can see how this is true for other exercises and muscle groups. The findings then simply indicate that you should perform a routine with exercises that train muscle groups twice per week and you should have a high degree of effort at the end of all or most of your sets. Not much else seems to matter. Notice also that this simple approach would maximize both strength and muscular hypertrophy.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice find faz.

Lyle knows his stuff, I have read a lot of articles from his site but I haven't seen this before. I was thinking a lot along these lines lately as I'm trying to extend the time I can deal with maximal weights without overtraining. A lot of studies compare single set and multiple set routines often with little difference in the results which would lead one to believe that intensity is far more important than volume but in terms of increasing lifts the skill has to be honed and maintained with volume and frequency or it performance suffers.

I like 3-4 sets per exercise with long rest periods and 2-3 times per week as the bread and butter of strength training.

This is a good read but would apply for beginners mostly I think. Have you had experience with this low volume set-up?

Theo

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice find faz.

Lyle knows his stuff, I have read a lot of articles from his site but I haven't seen this before. I was thinking a lot along these lines lately as I'm trying to extend the time I can deal with maximal weights without overtraining. A lot of studies compare single set and multiple set routines often with little difference in the results which would lead one to believe that intensity is far more important than volume but in terms of increasing lifts the skill has to be honed and maintained with volume and frequency or it performance suffers.

I like 3-4 sets per exercise with long rest periods and 2-3 times per week as the bread and butter of strength training.

This is a good read but would apply for beginners mostly I think. Have you had experience with this low volume set-up?

Theo

TBH over the years i've tried everything.

based on alot of these studies and alot of experience a guy called "blade" on the internet who's a bbr called "borge fagerli" has developed a style called myo-reps, google it,its good if youve reached a platue on maximal weights.

Edited by faz
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok i've found it for you,basicly borge says that full activation of fibres are used when you do say a 5rm,anything higher than that you only activate all fibres in the final reps,so for eg if you did 3x12 only maybe the last 4reps of each set would activate all fibres so your only getting 12 activation reps in all, but if you only have 20secs rest between all reps would cause all reps to activate fibres,the problem there is first you probably couldnt do it with that short a time between and second fatigue would limit your frequency to train,so he suggests you do one set to near faliure ie 12reps then take 20 secs and do 5x5x4x4x4 etc that way exept for the first 8 of the 12 all the other reps are activation reps.

lyle explains it better.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As promised, I wrote a little explanation/summary of the Myo-reps, so here you go. It was beneficial for me, forced me to understand it better myself. And yes, Blade checked and approved

Myo-reps is a method, not a program, so it can be used with most program setups instead of "traditional" strength training. The idea is to achieve maximum muscle fiber activation and then get in as many effective reps as possible while maintaining that activation by limiting the rest periods of the following sets.

There are mainly three ways to achieve full activation:

1. Lifting a light weight explosively. Also called speed-training. As long as you accelerate the weight to the maximum, you can get reasonably close to 100% activation.

2. Lift a heavy weight of approximately 5-6RM or heavier, and try to lift as explosive as possible. Although the movement is slow, you will achieve maximum fiber activation as a result of the load. Heavier weights are primarily lifted by the coordination of nerve impulses, and not by increased fiber activation.

3. Lift light to moderate weight to or close to failure. Muscle fiber activation follows the so-called size principle in which the smallest and weakest (and most enduring) are activated first, and the larger and stronger muscle fibers after that - when there is a need for them. When you reach failure, the activated muscle fibers aren't generating enough tension to lift the load. Fatigue can be neural - which among other things implies a reflective inhibition of nerve impulses to muscles in order to avoid overloading. There will also be varying degrees of metabolic fatigue, the accumulation of H+ ions and lack of ATP.

But you don't want to go too close to failure, because that will limit your training volume too much you won't be able to do enough reps for an optimal training effect and keep your training frequency high enough. It's a fine line between enough fatigue to reach sufficient fiber activation and too much fatigue causing failure, and it requires knowing your own limits and training tolerance. That's part of why this is not a suitable method for beginners, and you should have a few years of training experience before using Myo-reps. (Another part is that you should have a correct technique on all exercises critical since you will be training so close to failure.)

So, to achieve full fiber activation, you will first perform an activation set, (typically a longer set of e.g. 10 reps) where you should go close to failure (but not all the way). Stop when rep speed is noticeably slower than the previous repetition, or when you know you might be able to do 1 more rep, but not 2.

Next goal is to maintain the activation so that every following rep is "effective" (that is, expose all the activated muscle fibers to the load), and perform as many of these effective reps as possible, and thus lead to a maximum signal response and training effect. You achieve this by taking only short rests of about 10-20 seconds (5-10 deep breaths) between the following sets. Through the rapid recycling of ATP, you can continue with sets of 1-5 reps using the same load. And this is where you'll need experience and knowing your limits just enough fatigue to maintain close to 100% fiber activation, but not so much that it will limit the number of total reps too much for necessary volume. It is a delicate balance.

So, from now on you will be more aware of rep speed, or how explosive you can lift the weight. This in itself is helping to provide full fiber activation, but will also act as an indicator of how close you are to failure. So, as soon as the rep speed is significantly reduced from one rep to the next, you are getting too close to failure, and it is time to stop the set.

You should use some method to auto-regulate your training volume, so that you will be training according to your current ability (which depends on stress, recovery, sleep, nutrition, etc).

For example:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blade

I've implemented a fatigue-stop method akin to Mike T in his RTS system (he uses a % table) where you use RPE and rep speed to determine how to continue the set. So for example:

10 reps (activation) + 10sec rest, 3 reps + 10 sec rest, 3 reps (third rep slow and grindy) this is Fatigue Stop 1 (FS1)

now... + 20sec rest, 2 reps (so - longer rest and less reps) + 20sec rest, 2 reps etc until 2nd rep slow and grindy - you've reached Fatigue Stop 2 (FS2) so STOP.

At heavier loads, you switch to lighter loads at FS1, as mentioned.

This will auto-regulate your volume, moreso limiting it when your recuperative abilities are limited as I do not recommend going beyond a pre-determined volume by more than 40-50%.

Heavier loads require fewer reps after the activation set because you are close to maximum fiber recruitment from the first rep. Lighter loads require more reps, because the actual tension per fiber unit is lower, and you must let the load "work" on the muscle longer to compensate. At the same time you must consider that it will be beneficial to get more recovery early in the training phase so that you'll be able to push heavy in the end, so you should aim to keep the number of reps after the activation set pretty much in the same area throughout the whole training phase.

General guidelines:

+15-20 when you have only one exercise for a muscle group, for priority muscle groups, when you use lighter weights, or just have a higher volume tolerance

+10-15 when you have two exercises for a muscle group, or have a moderate volume tolerance

+5-10 when you have several exercises for a muscle group, when youre lifting very heavy weights, or if you for various reasons have lower volume tolerance.

All these reps after the activation set will be more effective than when taking a longer break (typically 1-3 minutes) between the sets and having to "start over" on the next set to achieve full fiber activation again. Also note that when you perform more than one exercise for a muscle group, you will reach full activation sooner due to accumulation of fatigue, so the activation set can be shorter. So, with the second or third exercise, rather shorten the activation set instead of reducing the load.

An example series of Myo-reps might look like this:

11 reps (close to failure) + 3 reps + 3 reps + 3 reps + 2 reps + 2 reps + 2 reps

= 11 +15 reps

As many of you may have noticed, Myo-reps has many similarities to the well-known and efficient DC-method which is also utilizing rest-pause training. The most critical difference is that you want to rather control fatigue than to use it as a goal in itself, as that will allow you to increase the total training volume and frequency.

Now, let's compare Myo-reps to the "traditional" training protocol.

Here's a hypothetical example of a standard 3 sets of 10 reps with 2 min rests between the sets. The "effective" reps near maximum fiber activation are marked with *:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8* 9* 10*

1 2 3 4 5 6 7* 8* 9* 10*

1 2 3 4 5 6* 7* 8* 9*

That's 29 total reps of which 11 was effective with full fiber activation.

And a series of Myo-reps (10-20 second rests):

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8* 9* 10*

1* 2* 3* 4*

1* 2* 3* 4*

1* 2* 3*

1* 2* 3*

(= 10+14 reps)

24 total reps of which 17 effective.

Do you see the difference? Because of the short rests every rep after the activation set was effective. And you used maybe half of the time. You will in other words train as effectively as possible instead of as much as possible.

The extent to which the density (total number of reps performed per hour) plays a role in the training effect, we don't know for sure. There are some indications of a higher density providing a better stimulus.

Let's look at what an example training phase could look like from the beginning to the end. You would increase your weights approximately 5% from week to week.

Week 1-2: 50-55%, 20-25 +15 (20-25 +5+5+5)

Week 3-4: 60-65%, 15-20 +16 (15-20 +4+4+4+4)

Week 5-6: 70%, 12-15 +15 (12-15 +3+3+3+3+3)

Week 7-9: 75%, 10-12 +15 (10-12 +3+3+3+2+2+2)

Week 10-12: 80%, 8-10 +14 (8-10 +2+2+2+2+2+2+2)

Week 13-14: 80-85%, 6-8 +4, reduce load by 10-20% and continue 5-10 +6 (6-8 +2+2 # 5-10 +3+3)

This is just an example, it will obviously depend on how fast you increase the weights, and how quickly your strength increases. And remember to deload at some point, maybe with regular sets and longer rest periods.

Recommended volume is 20-30 total reps for a muscle group, up to 40-50 total reps when overlapping or prioritizing, 2-3 times a week. The simple version has a more or less static approach of 25-30 total reps (activation + Myo-reps series) so e.g. 15 +10 or 10 +15, or with heavier loads 8 +5 and a lighter dropset 10 +5. In the beginning of the training phase it's a good idea to use a full body routine 3-4 times a week, until you get to a little heavier loads and about 12-15 rep range in the activation set, when you might want to switch to a 2-split routine with about 4 weekly workouts.

Remember that a muscle cannot count, as the background for this volume recommendation has a larger context: the weights should be heavy enough to provide the necessary stimulus for the muscle and provide the necessary time under load (total reps), while not overloading tendons, joints and nervous system.

Also keep in mind that the most important requisite for muscle growth will still be progression of load, and to achieve it you need to train exactly enough to provide a training effect, but not so much that you are not able to recover from workout to workout (or you won't be able to meet the primary goal: increasing your weights).

A final note: Back squat, front squat and deadlift (and very often barbell row) are exercises where correct technique is critical to avoid injuries. When you're training as close to failure as you are with Myo-reps, it's easy to get sloppy with technique with these exercises, so to be on the safe side it's better to do standard sets with longer rest periods here.

Oh, and Blade just wanted to add the following, thinking you nerds would be interested:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blade

Both muscle fiber recruitment as well as rate coding seem to be important for optimal stimulation. You may have full fiber recruitment by lifting heavy loads (80%+) or by lifting very explosively, but to achieve higher rate coding you most likely need to work closer to failure (on the first set).

An added benefit of the short rests and short sets in the Myo-rep series is not only that you maintain fiber recruitment/rate coding, but also that there seems to be more stimulation from higher sparks of Ca+ fluxes via calcineurin, and important mediator/modulator of hypertrophy. Wernbom has looked into this and there are a couple of interesting newer studies which elucidates this further. Also, there is a theoretical advantage of having the tissue resetting and sensing separate mechanical strain events vs. a long series of reps which is sensed differently. This probably ties in with allowing the tissue to be flooded with blood and oxygen (hyperemia) vs. a hypoxic condition as in continuous tension and endurance-specific signaling.

Edited by faz
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for digging all this up for me.

he has a good body.

It's definitely a good read but it doesn't seem like anything too new, I don't think that any benefits would be derived from combining the methods - Doing more things at once leads to a compromised level of performance, if you understand where I'm coming from.

Strength training, Strength-Speed training and repetition training all contribute to hypertrophy but I don't think I've seen anything to convince me of significant benefit derived from combining them, well apart from saving time I suppose.

The idea of effective reps is well illustrated, I liked that but by this logic the less reps would be better, if doing 1-3 reps of 90+% 1RM then the activated reps would be 100% right?

That said, I might give it a go when i plateau next. Would appreciate hearing your progress and thoughts on it as you use it more? (assuming you currently use this)

Thanks again.

Theo

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for digging all this up for me.

he has a good body.

It's definitely a good read but it doesn't seem like anything too new, I don't think that any benefits would be derived from combining the methods - Doing more things at once leads to a compromised level of performance, if you understand where I'm coming from.

Strength training, Strength-Speed training and repetition training all contribute to hypertrophy but I don't think I've seen anything to convince me of significant benefit derived from combining them, well apart from saving time I suppose.

The idea of effective reps is well illustrated, I liked that but by this logic the less reps would be better, if doing 1-3 reps of 90+% 1RM then the activated reps would be 100% right?

That said, I might give it a go when i plateau next. Would appreciate hearing your progress and thoughts on it as you use it more? (assuming you currently use this)

Thanks again.

Theo

yes doing 5rm and below engages all fibres,but its very taxing on the body and doesnt allow for any proggress in weights if its already your 5rm,myo-reps allows you to use submaximal weights and still engage all fibres while still progressing the weights as he set out above.

TBH im not as interested in gaining to much anymore,im 53 and more interested in fitness now,plus over the yrs the heavy weights have taken there toll on my joints etc,but i still use this style to keep up what i have and its better on the joints IMO.

Edited by faz
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's fair, if you don't mind me asking, what joint problems do you experience and what would you attribute them to in particular?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's fair, if you don't mind me asking, what joint problems do you experience and what would you attribute them to in particular?

lower back,and knee problems, TBH probably ego lifting when younger,squats deadlifts etc.

also in the 70s when i started most gyms were powerliifting bbng gyms so i did a bit of both,we didnt have the knowledge we do now,so mostly it was "balls to the wall" every session.

i also played football and did martial arts aswell as alot of running, so alot of wear and tear.

Edited by faz
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lower back,and knee problems, TBH probably ego lifting when younger,squats deadlifts etc.

also in the 70s when i started most gyms were powerliifting bbng gyms so i did a bit of both,we didnt have the knowledge we do now,so mostly it was "balls to the wall" every session.

i also played football and did martial arts aswell as alot of running, so alot of wear and tear.

Lol running does me in too -.-

That's true, exercise science has developed a lot. Lol not that I've been around long enough to see much of it happen but still it's greatly helpful to fitness pros and the general public also.

You could try glucosamine and chondroitin for your joints, I haven't used it in a long time but I used to suffer rheumatoid arthritis as a kid and it helped me out quite a bit, far more than the medications I was prescribed to the point that I stopped taking them.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol running does me in too -.-

That's true, exercise science has developed a lot. Lol not that I've been around long enough to see much of it happen but still it's greatly helpful to fitness pros and the general public also.

You could try glucosamine and chondroitin for your joints, I haven't used it in a long time but I used to suffer rheumatoid arthritis as a kid and it helped me out quite a bit, far more than the medications I was prescribed to the point that I stopped taking them.

yeah tried them and cod liver oil,the thing is i dont suffer all the time its just when i do things like squats deadlifts,so i dont bother.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah tried them and cod liver oil,the thing is i dont suffer all the time its just when i do things like squats deadlifts,so i dont bother.

That's fair enough

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

About Fitnessandlifestyle.co.uk

Fitness and lifestyle community for all.